Talk:University of Sydney/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewording

Hi,

I have done some minor edits re: terminology. eg: School -> Faculty (of Arts, etc), fixed "field ancillary to medicine" to the correct "allied health disciplines", etc.

--DaveB 11:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

most prestigous? and ARC grants

I know that the University of Sydney is one of the most prestigous universities in Australia, but I'm not sure how I'd prove that to someone from (say) Finland. Getting the largest portion of ARC grants in a year does prove that Sydney is a leading research uni, but that won't change if we rank 3rd or 4th on that measure next year. I think it's best to avoid ephemeral "X of the year 2005" measures of status in an encyclopedia, anyway. -- Danny Yee 01:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Saying it's "one of the most pretigious" I think is ok, because it doessn't imply the most pretigious from year to year. Saying best of in 2005 is ok too I think because this is Wikipedia, not the Encyclopedia Britannica, and we can edit this any time any day. Enochlau 05:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It's most prestigious because it is most likely the only Australian university someone from Finland would have heard about. Tell them about University of New South Wales and they'll say, "yah, I know Wales. It's in Britain." --Sumple 03:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Then again, any intelligent person from Finland wouldn't look at USyd and automatically see prestige, they'd look into it first and probably judge it to be a decent university along with the ANU and UNSW. Actually, I doubt anyone from outside Australia is actually aware of any Australian universities by name, they could just guess ones at random (Sydney + University = Sydney University). Do you know the names of any universities in Finland without guessing? No? I didn't think so. Prestige cannot be proven, and I'm not a completely jealous UNSW student and hence won't be editing the article (which would probably be promptly edited back), but please keep a neutral POV in this article, especially when it comes to matters like these which are completely unproveable.Nebuchanezzar 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable faculty section

I don't know about this section - there are probably scores to hundreds of academic staff notable in their particular field. --Daveb 05:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

At the same time, it's probably good to link to people like Dr Karl. Perhaps set the eminence requirement very high so we end up with a more constricted list? Enochlau 11:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I wonder where we draw the line at who is "notable" and who is not? Dr Karl is obviously someone well known to the public. But, as Daveb suggested, would someone like Professor Graham Johnston who is world renowned in pharmacology be included here? -Techelf 13:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That is indeed difficult, in that users outside a particular field who have never heard of those eminent people might be trigger happy and delete additions quickly. What I propose is that we include those people who currently have an article on Wikipedia or those who have contributed enough for a reasonably sized entry on Wikipedia - there's a practical side to this in that it'll keep down the number of red links. What do you think? Enochlau 14:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm also starting to think that the Alumni list is getting quite unruly. Maybe the same tough standards should apply there too. Kewpid 03:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. In particular, I find the details concerning the leaders of the political parties rather excessive and unnecessary. Enochlau 10:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never head of the two archaeology professors listed... And I'm pretty well read, even if I'm not an archaeologist. I vote to scrap the section entirely. Danny Yee 05:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In its current state, I wouldn't mind having it go, but at the same time, I think such a list of prominent people is useful and encyclopedic - it's just that I'm not quite sure where to find such a list. Enochlau 07:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it should go; at present the list is in a poor state, and improving it would require some method of determining "notability". The article would do better to focus on the University itself. Cheers, --Daveb 13:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed the two "notable" sections: such lists are plagued with problems (see above for some), it is questionable whether they really provide any useful information about the University to the readers, and the article would be better off focussing on the university itself. --Daveb 03:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you just start a link to another page for the "University of Sydney Alumni" instead of getting rid of it altogether? Information should only be removed if it is factually incorrect. Its better to have more information which is superfluous, than not having it at all. I understand that it may clutter the main article, but don't get rid of it altogether! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.71.82 (talk • contribs) 17 December 2005

The major issue indeed in whether such a list can ever be "factually correct" in determining notability: what is notable and what isn't largely comes down to POV... just look at the articles nominated for deletion to see how this issue is troublesome. --Daveb 05:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree criteria for inclusion in such lists can be problematic; looking at the listed that has been deleted, we can see that a large number of the alumni listed had pages detailed to them on wikipedia already. IF they are notable enough to garner a 'notable' wikipedia article -- surely that is evidence enough to merit inclusion in such a list! novacatz 07:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Going through the list in a bit more detail, we can see that almost all the alumni have non-stubby articles (usually 2-3+ paragraphs). I went ahead with creation of a alumni page + linkage from here. novacatz 07:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea! I've added a "the" to the title because the name of the university contains a "the" in it; this page doesn't have it due to the title naming guidelines removing "the" at the front. Enochlau 09:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Establishment section

The first sentence of this section is factually incorrect on two counts. NSW did not ceace to be a colony of Britain in the 1840s, and the Legislative Council established during this era was far from democratic.

I think deleting that first sentence would be a good idea.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewT (talk • contribs) 30 September 2005

Indeed you're correct. I'm not sure why the rest of us didn't pick this up earlier. -Techelf 10:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

On checking the source of that sentence (see the foundingdocs link) it should say that NSW ceased to be penal colony in the 1840's, in the sense that transportation of convicts stopped. And it was moving towards a democratic government. 1855 is regarded as "beginning of responsible government in NSW". I don't know precisely what the sentence said, so I can't add it back. --Sumple 03:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the status of NSW is relevant to the University of Sydney article. Just leave it out. enochlau (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sports section

I've placed an expansion tag on that - it's a useful section to have I think, but could do with more detail. In particular, sydney uni has a soccer team doesn't it? anyone know anything about it? Enochlau 00:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

sydney uni also has a chess club. --Sumple 04:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

most prestigious and ARC grants

Danny, I see where you are coming from.

But...I do notice that the entry for Australian National University claims that it is the "best" in Australia, and Melbourne University is claiming that it is also one the the most "prestigious" universities in Australia. If these other Australian univerisities are claiming these things, Sydney University also has a right (possibly more of a right)to claim that it is one of the most prestigious.

The reference to the Australian Research Council grants was put in there to provide some recent justification to this claim. Anyway, I know for a fact that Sydney has been receiving the most grants for at least the past 6 years.

If not, Wikipedia can always be updated next year.

Cleric

well "best" is definitely POV, someone should correct that! If Sydney has been receiving the most ARC grants for the last six years, that would make a better statement than the current "in 2005", which (to me) strongly suggests things were different in 2004... -- Danny Yee 05:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

See my reply above. Just write "one of the best". Easy. Enochlau 05:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Gradual expansion

Call me crazy but I've borrowed some stuff from Fisher and I'll gradually expand it over the next couple of weeks. Just letting you all know in case you're wondering why the article might be a little unbalanced while I write it in dribs and drabs. Enochlau 09:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewording

I cleaned up the second paragraph of the HISTORY section a bit and added the date of the royal charter(February 27). Drn8 03:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. enochlau (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's all work to make this a featured article yeh? :) enochlau (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• more minor wikification in the HISTORY section. Drn8 15:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Added National Archives of Australia link to refrences. Drn8 15:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Crap! Thanks for the graphs Enoch, I didn't realise the Howard government had cut university funding by that much. Kewpid 18:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha yeh, although the sharp decline looks as if it started in the late 80s, Howard just continued it - would that have been Hawke instead? enochlau (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Judo club

There isn't actually any content to merge! Can we just delete the judo club entry? (If we are going to cover clubs here, we should have some guidelines as to how much info we provide for each club, otherwise we risk having lots about a few clubs and nothing about most.) -- Danny Yee 08:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the merge notice hoping someone associated with the University knew more of the judo clubs noteworthiness. If the club isn't worthy of inclusion here, it can be listed for deletion. -- Longhair 08:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made some general comments on the topic of clubs and socs below. Cheers, --Daveb 08:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge (or preferably delete the other page) Dankru 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I see it has been listed on WP:AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney University Judo Club. --Daveb 14:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't think stuff like judo clubs are that relevant. If you include judo clubs then as a amtter of consistency other tiny little clubs like chocolate loving students society would also need to be included... --Sumple 04:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, there's such a club? :P enochlau (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Clubs and socs in general

USyd has over 250 clubs and societies [1].

Large organisations with interesting history and significant operations aside from just being a uni club may warrant their own article, e.g. the Medical Society (has been around for 120 years, runs possibly Australia's largest medical book provider, has well-known and referenced public orations, has multiple publications, has made submissions to government bodies, has appeared before Australian Senate hearings, etc) or similar organisations might be notable enough for an article, however most clubs are small and not particularly notable and as such do not warrant articles.

It would also be unwiedly to include them all in this article. The best approach is to give an overview in the main article of:

• The major students organisations (Union, SRC, SUPRA, SU Sport).
• The general topic of clubs and socs at USyd (more-or-less as the article does now, although it could perhaps have its tone made more encyclopaedic). This could include a link to the Union's clubs and socs page for those wishing to find out more.

Cheers, --Daveb 08:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a good criterion - having significant operations aside from just being a uni club. (Law Society is another one). But one potential problem might be societies which have external affiliations, which may or may not be very large or significant on campus. I'm thinking of the politically affiliated clubs; the NGO-affiliated clubs, and the international scam societies (Golden Key, to name a prime example). --Sumple 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Faculty 2,451

On the summary panel it says there are 2451 faculties. Do I understand this correctly? Faculties as in Engineering, Law etc?!? CW 14:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

2,451 teaching staff. - Randwicked Alex B 15:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks like use of the American English way of describing academic staff as "faculty". --Daveb 13:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Down with Ameriglish!

I notice it's been changed to "academic staff". Is that true? Does the figure include the support staff and general staff? like all the tech ppl and the accounts ppl and the casual tutors?--Sumple 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.usyd.edu.au/about/profile/pub/facts.shtml enochlau (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

45,966 students

This figure is meaninglessly accurate - the number of enrolled students goes up and down every week, let alone over the course of a year - and provides spurious precision. You don't see the entry for Australia giving the census figures to the nearest person, it just says "around 20.4 million people".

It's also much harder for someone scanning the article to read - 46,000 is clearly a number in the mid 40 thousands, which is all anyone cares about, whereas the extra digits in 45,966 make scanning that little bit harder. (There's a reason we've approximated the FTE staff number to 2,300; the same reason applies to the student number.) -- Danny Yee 22:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your claims are incorrect:

• The figure is not meaninglessly accurate. The university knows precisely how many students have enrolled in it. Of course, the figure changes from week to week as people have classes at different times, but there is a fixed number of students enrolled at a university.
• It is not that much harder to read, and being an encyclopedia, I think we should be as precise as possible.
• The reason why the staff number is 2,300 is because that's exactly what it is surprisingly. The actual number is 2,299.xx but saying part of a person sounds funny, so I rounded it off to the nearest whole number. If you're worried about consistency, we can go ahead and write in the decimal points.

I propose that we change it back to the precise figure. enochlau (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed back to the precie number.

While you may think that students "drop out" etc, the enrolment is known with precision because there are census dates by which drop-outs are not possible. These are the dates on which your HECS debt are calculated. So each semester, on census day, the university knows precisely how many people are enrolled, and that number will not change for the rest of the semester. Even if people do not attend classes anymore, they stayed enrolled past that date.

See [2] for detailed statistics.

On the staff issue - i think the .xx represents part time people, or job sharing? --Sumple 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think so, I think they also include part time tutors as well, who don't work full time (maybe 5 hours a week or something). enochlau (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The staff figure is in FT equivalents, so a half-time employee would count as 0.5. So we should actually say "2300 full-time equivalent staff" - the number of staff is presumably the 2451 figure in the infobox (though I would have thought there'd be more part-time staff than that). -- Danny Yee 04:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling the 2,451 figure is the 2004 (fte) number; I've seen that number for a long time. enochlau (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

We should probably update the infobox then. Also, as a member of the general staff myself, I'd prefer to give a figure for total staff, not just academics. I can't seem to find one, though. -- Danny Yee 12:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the number of students, sure, at some point last year there may have been exactly 45,966 students enrolled (though that may be a FT equivalent figure too). But the number would have gone up and down over the course of the year and giving an exact number just makes it hard for a reader to extract the important information, which is that the figure is in the mid 40 thousands. This entry is not a formal document for a DEST audit, it's aimed at a general reader! (We have better figures for the population of Australia than "20.4 million", but one decimal place is still plenty of accuracy to give in the Australia article.) -- Danny Yee 04:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Given we don't know what time of year that number was calculated at, how can its precise value be of any use to anyone? But change it back if you really think someone will want it - it looks unprofessional to me, but it's hardly a cardinal sin. -- Danny Yee 04:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The website says it was last updated on 14-Dec-2005, so it should be the final figures for 2005. Will change back now. enochlau (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Danny did you even read my post? see the bit with the "census date" in bold. To re-iterate, enrolments do not change after a certain day during each semester. --Sumple 05:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue of dropping out after the census date is slightly more complicated that Sumple presents, but the census date figure is still an official figure used by the university. Fees and other things are based on status at that date, so I think it's worth using that number. I'd guess that it is actually the number of students, rather than full time equivalent students, but that's probably worth checking. JPD (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Students can and do discontinue in between census dates, so the number of enroled students most certainly does change! (If they discontinue too late they may still have to pay HECS, but they will no longer be students - and there are academic differences between discontinuing and just failing.) The census dates are just a formal accounting point for DEST paperwork - I believe there are two of them each year - and I really can't see how the exact census figure is of interest to anyone except the bureaucrats. But if you all think it matters, it's not a huge issue. -- Danny Yee 12:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, the census day is not the last day to drop out. but anyway... --Sumple 22:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what it is, we're just reporting what the university reports. enochlau (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent & dropping in from WP:AWNB) I think 45,966 is unnecessarily accurate. Or it would be, if it was accurate. I agree with Danny Yee that it is "spurious precision". If necessary, put the round figure in the lead, and in a later section on 2005/Enrolments/whatever, you can say there was 45,966 students officially enrolled in 2005 by the census date of March whatever whatever. If you're going to be that accurate, you need the context, and that's not appropriate for the lead. pfctdayelise 03:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"arguably one of the best"

I already reverted one of his edits and signed his talk page, but a user is adding snippets like "arguably one of the best schools" and "one of the hardest to get into". I wouldn't know, since I'm not from there, but those appear to me to be POV. -- goatasaur 03:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. Not to mention inserting lines on how awesome the USyd Law School is into articles on other universities... - Randwicked Alex B 03:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't it a fact, not conjecture, that it is the hardest to get into? It does have the highest entrance requirements. enochlau (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WIkipedia is not the UAC guide 2006. :| - Randwicked Alex B 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

A brief glance at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words will help here. Citing reliable sources and avoiding the use of weasel words altogether will assist with neutralising the article. -- Longhair 03:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously sydney law school is the best. but you don't go around blabbing that kind of thing. --Sumple 03:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying that it's "arguably the best" is certainly POV and should be cut, but I think it's relevant to mention that a Combined Law degree has the highest UAI cut-off, at least in NSW if not in Australia. Braue 06:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

According to this year's UAI cutoffs, USyd is beating UNSW in BSc, BA, LLB, BCom, BEc, and the architecture degree. --Sumple 02:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the cut-off? Xtra 02:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

99.6 for 2003/4/5 and 99.55 for 2006. enochlau (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Its pretty much a supply v demand thing. It depends on both the number of people who want to gewt in to each place, and how many places are available at each. Mind you (I am not from Sydney) I have been told that the UNSW Law course is better.Xtra 03:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a supply and demand thing, but if it does prove to be the course in Australia with the highest entrance requirements, that is somewhat noteworthy and something we should consider mentioning. Clearly you've been speaking to UNSW people ;) The thing is, comparing law schools is kind of pointless because it's impossible to compare them yourself if you've only been to one. enochlau (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Was there recently a few different studies which judged uni's in different areas (like teacher quality) and gave them ranks based on that?

I would like to know actual numbers of applicants to various cources at various uni's. We should also keep in mind that number of applicants is weighted more heavily towards uni's in big cities, simple because there is a larger pool of people. (why did i do law - i should have become a statastician) Xtra 03:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Times Education Supplement (there's an article in wikipedia somewhere) ranks Australian unis as ANU, Melb, USyd, then UNSW, I think. --Sumple 03:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Page 7 of [3] gives the number of applicants per university, but it's not broken down by course. enochlau (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Woa, I just looked up the VTAC website and the clearly in has skyrocketed for law since I got in. Xtra 04:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you got a link? enochlau (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[4]. Xtra 04:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Residential Colleges

I have created a template for the Colleges and added it to the University page and those College pages that exist. More need doing. I'm working on St John's. The template is at Template:University of Sydney Colleges. --Bduke 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Image identification

Re: this edit - an anonymous user changed the caption on my image, Image:Usyd Anderson Stuart.jpg from being Anderson Stuart to the Clock Tower. Is that correct? I took it a while back so I can't remember where I took it, and admittedly both look kind of similar - but the image does have a clock on it! So, opinion please - have I misidentified my own picture? Thanks. enochlau (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

try http://community.webshots.com/album/368181626PnhZPB Xtra 14:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like clock tower! Tho I will check when I go there on Monday... enochlau (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the great tower. anderson stuart does not have sticking-out windows at the front. --Sumple (Talk) 23:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, definitely the carillon tower on the eastern side of the main quad. -Techelf 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The University of Sydney? Or just University of Sydney?

Hello. I'm wondering why the University infobox uses the name "The University of Sydney" instead of just "University of Sydney"? Shouldn't it be proper to use the latter instead? --60.49.111.41 19:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the actual name of the university has the "the" in it. The article name doesn't have a "the" because of the manual of style: WP:MOS. enochlau (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

IP Address/ 129.78.64.106

129.78.64.106 - this is the IP address for Wikipedia contributors originating from Sydney University (Camperdown/Darlington campus). I know, I was one of them. Htra0497 17:31 25th May 2006 (AET)

Yes, it gets blocked sometimes... there are obviously some very immature uni students floating around. enochlau (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be university academic or support staff as they're the ones with free untimed internet access. You can just imagine the scene. Htra0497 22:24 21th August 2006 (AET)

Students get (limited) free internet at the Access Labs... enochlau (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Prestige arising from history

Hi,

I think it'll be a good idea to express the prestige that University of Sydney possess from being the first University in Australia. This might be particularly potent in stressing the excellence in different faculties.

For example, the fact that our medicine faculty has been around for 150 years, or the fact that we've had the most high court judges, or the fact that our law faculty is arguably the best in terms of student demand etc.

Read WP:NPOV. enochlau (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia was where, supposedly, humans originated. Does that make it a better country, and worthy of the "prestige" title? Of course not, your idea is foolish. Keep this article as a damn encyclopedia entry, not an advertisement like the Newington College article has become (before many great wikipedians edited it). I don't see a problem with saying that it's the oldest university and hence has had more time to develop, and because of that has a higher standing over many smaller universities. But to go and blatantly say "This uni has been around longer, it's made more useless judges and thus it's Australias best university" is plain foolishness. Nebuchanezzar 12:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't see how it is a form of advertisement, or subjective, if one states that "University of Sydney has produced the most high court judges than any other University in Australia" - one, it's a fact, and two, I browse through other no doubt high quality wikipedia entries on other Universities - Harvard Uni for example has a whole section expressing how it's America's oldest University, and how people have made all sorts of movies there etc.; isn't that blatant advertisement? Or is it just because not enough 'great wikipedians' have gone there and edited it? I'm not saying that they're wrong, I'm merely saying that it's not incorrect for us to include true facts about Sydney Uni, so that students can be proud of and users of wikipedia can obtain a truer and fairer view of Sydney Uni.

Please re-read what I've written first before criticising it; nowhere in the text of what I've written states that I want to say "University of Sydney is Australia's best", or anything which is not true.

Thanks.

You said it in the context of expressing the university's "excellence" in some faculties. Sure, point out achievements, but it needs to be a balanced article in the end. enochlau (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello All, a clear measure of the University's "prestige" is the sentiment of its potential students. UAC statistics show that more UAI high acheiving high school students allocated the UOS as a first preference than any other university... this surely says something about "prestige" which is in itself a subjective notion. At the least, it can be said that it is held to be the most prestigious (as expressed by student applicatons) but that prestige can never be proven appart form sentiments of interested people/ AMONTHEMERCIFUL

Not really. I don't know the stats for USyd, but to give an analogy Fort Street High School always has the highest percentage of preferences in the selective schools exam - but it does crap as in the Higer School Certificate, and is not the hardest to get in. Without excellence and exclusiveness, you can't really claim prestige. --Sumple (Talk) 12:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fort Street High has Private School competition, that is why it is not prestigious... "excellence" comes from having the highest no. of Nobel L's and highest research fund grants... "exclusiveness" comes from having the highest UAI entry standard for LLB... no other course at all universities has the highest UAI standard than UOS LLB... It is the hardest course to enter.

I don't know of any other measure of "exclusiveness" than: (1)the highest demand to enter (as expressed by UAC applications) and;(2)the highest restriction on entry... also, 'prestige' is not defined as high acheiving... it is a sentiment... not an outcome...

As an encyclopedia, it's not our job to tell people the university has "prestige", whatever that may be. enochlau (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think if it's a very clear cut case, then you could say something - e.g. Oxford and Cambridge are the most prestigious universities in the UK. But you can't really say that with Australian unis coz you can make an argument for prestige with many unis. ANU for example. --Sumple (Talk) 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"you can make an argument for prestige with many unis" - may I ask what criteria you use to make such statement...

The purpose of an encyclopedia is indeed to state that something has "prestige" if it indeed has it ;) think about it - what else do you suggest is to be omitted from an encyclopedia - do you have any defined definitive criteria, or are you just making statemnets without reasoned basis?

ANU is always higher in ranking. So are (usually) Melb and Monash and (often) UNSW. ANU has many famous professors. What, apart from UAI (and mind you, that is an indicator only in NSW), can support this claim of prestige? --Sumple (Talk) 11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

med higher than law entry, 99.95JUBALCAIN 00:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The medicine entry is far more complicated than just a number though. enochlau (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

'Prestige' may be defined as, "the level of respect at which one is regarded by others" - it is cleary a subjective thing - whether that level of respect is deserved or not is immaterial. In any case, there are enough people on this thread arguing for the term 'prestige' to make it so regarded by them, even if it is not deserved in UAI, ranking, or whatever other standard...

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we can discuss the reasons that it may or may not be deserved, but as I noted above, it is completely immaterail to the definion and, hence, the use of the term 'prestige' on the page. We must be precise when using terms in an encyclopedia, and your emotive response to an undeserved use of the term does not make it any less true of it fitting the definition above. It is subjective, deserved or not, hence, it is used on the page - talk to the forefathers of the english lanuguage or the publishers of the english dictionary if you don't like the meaning... It seems that it is your mis-comprehension of the menaing of the term which leads to your emotive opposition to its use on the page. 'Pretige' of an institution relates solely to the sentiment of the public to that institution - that sentiment is dynamic and may be influenced by other standards such as history, rankings, Nobel Lauretes, and the factor influencing that sentiment will change as the important standards of society change... It is a cultural holding in the minds of the populace and not an outcome measured by standards. It is in the minds of the people, and not in the thing itself - it is, as so defined, "the level of respect at which [an institution] is regarded by others" and the institution may be regarded a high level of respect for no particular reason at all, but it will have the defined 'prestige' nonetheless. [AmonTheMerciful]

Hear hear.

Oxbridge inspiration?

A proposed re-wording of:

"Centred on the Oxbridge-inspired grounds of the University's Main Campus..."

Does not the phrase "Main Campus" embrace the whole Camperdown/Redfern site? In that case what is "Oxbridge-inspired" about it besides the Quadrangle alone? The closest I can think of is the nearby Medical School building, while the three residential colleges are off the beaten track of normal student pedestrian traffic. The above sentence conveys a misleading picture IMHO.

Pádraig Coogan 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The physics building, the buildings along science road? holme? and the residential colleges, as you say. Perhaps "oxbridge-inspired campberdown campus", for accuracy?

I think the current wording is fine. No one in their right mind would think the entire main campus was oxbridge inspired. We have new buildings after all. I think it's mainly a reference to the sandstone stuff. enochlau (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

agree only med build and quad look like 'a part' of cain bridge beyond that nothing reallyJUBALCAIN 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Rankings

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/anu-up-there-with-the-best/2006/10/05/1159641468047.html

New rankings have come in. enochlau (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti democratic action / Threats against students

- - "The University of Sydney has been prepared to threaten (medical) students with litigation, and un enrolment pursuant to threats made by the federal government to have students un enrolled who leave a federal bonding scheme without penalty. These threats came to light when the former Dean of Medicine, Professor Andrew Coats provided a HECS medical student with the letter containing the threat from the federal government. That University acquiesced to the federal government threats and un rolled the student who was then threatened by their teaching hospital Royal Prince Alfred (Sydney) with criminal allegations of trespass and assault if that student attempted to complete their Medical degree. This information was also offically obatined by exercise of an Freedom of Information (FOI) request under New South Wales State Law.

The large issue here is the University is acting at the behest of the federal executive as a opposed to the federal (or state) parliment, which mean indivudals rights may be affected by the executive goverment rather than rule of law. That is no law was cited by the federal excutive agent, a Mr. R. Wells, and indeed Mr.R. Wells states in the document that the student in question has left the federal contract/scheme without penalty. As Mr. R. Wells "asks" the University to uneroll the student, he usurps the will of the federal parliment. (links will follow to the documents)

Please comment before inclusion

My take on these paragraphs is that they don't seem particularly encyclopedic and not worthy of inclusion. enochlau (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend the original author of these paragraphs to look up the prefix "un-" and "dis-" in the dictionary first. --Sumple (Talk) 13:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, Enochlau, it would be most useful if you could elaborate on your rationale. ::

Also sumple not quite following...

Unreferenced, NPOV, soap boxing, amateur legal analysis... there are many problems with the paragraphs. And its a big fuss made out of something that doesn't seem particularly important in the grand scheme of things. It looks like stuff that someone would try to include out of sour grapes against the university. enochlau (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok [1] Why amature, consider the 4 cases on the civil conscritpion, and the fed parliment being usruped by exucuitve government.

[2] Fed parliment will being usurped by fed excutive, in *a* university that holds itelf out as the bastion of free congress of ideas.

[3] Significant as the fincial implication (>$20 -$30 million) to the public for medicare remintances, and demostrates how the fed government is applying its medicare prohabition, that is 12 years or life ban. apply this to 20% of all grafuating medical practioners, and how exactly is Australia going get enough Dr's + the medicare levy becomes a tacation without remitance.

[4] Links will be provided for ref, this is valid.

The university holds itself out as the bastion of free ideas? Says who? The main problem is that it is unencyclopedic - this is content that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Bigger catastrophes have engulfed the university in the past, yet they are not covered - hence the insertion of this paragraph will distort the history or the view of the university as presented in this article. enochlau (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Says the objects of the Unversity of Sydney act!!!! eg (2)(b), (d)

(2) The University has the following principal functions for the promotion of its object: (a) the provision of facilities for education and research of university standard, (b) the encouragement of the dissemination, advancement, development and application of knowledge informed by free inquiry, (c) the provision of courses of study or instruction across a range of fields, and the carrying out of research, to meet the needs of the community, (d) the participation in public discourse,

As far as size of issue, in the entire history of the University A student (paid up and in good standing) has never been unerolled for federal political policy reasons....!!!! that is at the request of the a member of the federal executive....!!!, also that is only one of th 3 points, would apreciate your thorough and reasoned argument.

To explain my earlier comment: "un" by itself is not a word. It's a prefix, meaning that it should be combined with a root word to form another word: e.g. able --> unable; do --> undo.

Secondly, for the word "enrol", "un-" is usually used as formative for the adjective "enrolled" to form the adjective "unenrolled", which means "not [yet] enrolled", whereas "dis-" is usually used as formative for the verb "enrol" to form the verb "disenrol", which means "to remove from roll/reverse enrolment". In the present case, "disenolment" is probably more appropriate than "unenrolment". --Sumple (Talk) 08:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A comment on the legal position: the University is a creature of statute. It is not an independent tribunal like Administrative Appeals Tribunal, or a Chapter III Court. I see no reason why the university cannot bend to the will of the Federal executive. --Sumple (Talk) 08:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the edification, on dis and un, i beleive you are corrent on point.

Moving on, well in this case their are a few reasons:: [1] The university has acepted payments under HEFA act, passed by the federal parliment, [2] The threat is issue from the federal executive, which cites no head of power, and no legislation, he merely asks. (i still have to link to the resource ) [3] As you would know the federal constituion is a limited powers constituion (unlike a plenary state powers) so fisrt they have to find a head of power (excpet for some vestigal perogative powers, + others such as war powers which may was and wane with war footing) then the cth must pass a law under that power then the executive is charged to uphold those laws and the constituion.

thus in this instance a mere executive bercract asking the university to do something (that he he has cited no law and indeed there is not law), is beyond power. Effectively then the issue that he is prosecuting by "asking" has never been before the parliment for open examination by the parliment before the people etc, which is an inimical feature (or implied at least ) of the constituional federal government. to use the source and stream analogy from the the communist case in a braod way, this executive officer is raising thier wishes and the Universities actions into a federal parlimentry postion, htat is usurping the role and function of the federal parliment...IF this was not enough to as a medical student to be unenrolled becuase they are have chosen not to be part of a federal scheme of provision of medical services, is in breach of the civil any form of conscription prohabition, see s51 plactum xxxiiA of the constitution. So in this case the Univerisity of sydney is in direct violation of constituional guarautess. The DOGS case determined that tied state funding grants cannot be used to circumvent constituional prohabition ( just cuting of that argument as I am sure you would raise it). So we see in this acition, ideological policy rather than policy that is executed to uphold a partucalr law is the what is in issue. Efectively the University of sydney is being copted into a federal sphere of power , that of the federal parliment, against a cosntituional prohabition, agasint citizens.

s 51 deals with legislative power. Alleged coersion of a university to terminate the enrolment of a student is not a legislative act - no law is being made. What's more, the university of sydney is incapable of violating a constitutional constraint on legislative power, because it is not the federal parliament. So s 51 has no application at all. In any case, funding to USyd is direct and not a states grant, I thought. I would have thought your best bet would be something like abuse of power by the university...

In any case, the legal merits of the case is irrelevant to whether it should be in a Wikipedia article. Please show notability by reference to a reliable media source, reputable academic journal, or published book. --Sumple (Talk) 10:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read previous... constituional prhoabition cannot be got a round by wnlisting the help of state bodies by tied grants...That is you can by of a state to out flank a consituional prohabition!!!!

Because the University of Sydney is actually a state instrumentality, it and its officers should be able to do whatever they like within the limits of the University of Sydney Act. If an officer of the Commonwealth asks an officer of the university to do something, that request, even if it is a request for the university to do something that the Commonwealth itself cannot legislate on per s51, can be made and enacted upon because it is ultimately the independent decision of the university's officer. As Sumple said above, it is not the enactment of a piece of legislation. In any case, this is what I mean by amateur legal analysis. Can you point us to proper published sources that support your legal analysis? Are you just making this all up based on what you think is constitutional law? enochlau (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(adding a few words) Your analysis jumps too many steps. Even if we suppose that s51 does not empower the Cth to legislate to expel a medical student, and even if we accept that the Cth cannot legislate by stealth through tied grants, note two things:

A "constitutional prohibition" within the meaning of the rule as to state grants means an actual, express, prohibition such as that relating to religion (i.e. freedoms). In fact, the doctrine in DOGS is almost certainly restricted only to religion. "Civil conscription", even if it applies, is not subject to such a freedom. To rely on this doctrine you will almost certainly need to show that medical study is a religion.

You claim that the federal government's funding of universities amounts to a state grant, and that requiring the university to expel a student amounts to a condition attached to the grant. I don't see how this works. Firstly, the university is not the state government; it is not a part of the state government. Secondly, you will need to show that any state grant is being made conditional on the expulsion requirement. This will be very difficult - if the university is simply acquiescing of its own accord, or just to maintain the good will of the federal government, then it is not a condition. I doubt that itit even counts as "incentive", but of course using incentives for states to fllow federal policy is valid. Finally, you claim that university funding is a state grant. Is it? A "state grant" to which you refer is a law made under s96. Is it the case here? --Sumple (Talk) 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

ok...lets got thorugh this you are getting closer. [1] Lets start with s51, plactum xxiiia, and the material cases on point.

Section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Commonwealth Constitution was inserted following the successful referendum of 1946. It gave the Federal Parliament power, subject to the Constitution, to make laws with respect to: The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances.

whats we are interested in is

"medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)"

so while the Unviersity is a creature of state, vis University of sydney act, in fact this does not mater. The language " but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription" with particular emphisias on "any form of" is the widest legal language available. I put it to you construct any wider language than "any form of". What this means is that any form of action that practically in anyway stops the deliverance of medical services is illeagal. *So* it doesnt matter if the from is directed at the unverstiy a state body or not state body or any one else, all that matters is that the slightest infraction of pressure, is a from of civil conscription. Thus if the The fed govt, as a tied grant system, with any body that allows provision of medical services, or is a means a neccesarry means to eveuntually providing medical services (as that would still be a form), an the fed govt says if you let person X be enrolled, we will not fund you, forever.... this is most certainly a form of civil conscription, even if the University is simply acquiescing to stay in the Fed good books.

The issue of the DOGS case is that s96 cannot be used to circumvent constituional prohabitions.

There are a feew other issues here as well. The student x, cannot have their rights so affected by the fed govt. There is not legal contract or law govverning the rights of the student in this situation. That it there is no contract on foot between the student and the fed govt, and there is no law that allows student x to be so acted against. In fact just the opposite. The limit of a breach of a contract was 12 years prohabition on access to a provider number. The fed government chose this as the outerlimit of the sanction of reaching the contract (19ABA HIC cth). The fed government was very carefull not to actually stop the delivery of medical services, merely the access to the rebate (this is becuas of the 4 previous HCA cases on point). The federal executive is commanded by s61 of the constituion to uphold the constituion an laws made under it. So first is has to find a head of power as to act agasint a individuals rights. Secondly a law hs to be passed under that head of power, thirdly even if the person was in breach of that law, the Communist case has determide it is for the courts to decide who if the person is in the class of person that that law affects.

So in this siutation, there is no law on the statute book that says the fed govt can use funding threats to pressure uni to dis enroll students. Secondly there is no head of power, thirdly the student is Hecs student under the HEFA (act) which has been put in palce to provide educational places. Thus public monies (your tax payer money) remited under law, is being set at naught by the a federal executive request. The HEFA scheme is set at naught. There is na oopertunity cost in this action of the fed executive. The fed executive is not acting under s61, as thier is no law or head of power. The fed parliment has covered the field for the type of penalty, and as an article of statutory interprestation, it is that all legislation is made by the paliment in full knowledge of all current legislation. The fact that the fed govt never chose to change the HEFA act or HECS and the student still acrrued a HECS debt, shows that it never intended for tudents to be dis-enrolled for breach. Pause and think for a moment, how long such a bill would last in parliment. "We the prpose that even if public monies have paid a market rate of $100,000 for 2.5 years of education, the student then can loose thier place". Apart from the fact this is then civil conscription because it would stop the (eventual) deliverance of medical services, it would be political suicide. The fed govt kew how far it could go, and that was prevention of access to a provider number. An Thats all it did. The executive has gon way way beyond this. This is what living in a despotic/politburo state is like, no a constitional democarcy vis. rule of law.

What's your point? Even if your legal analysis is right, you haven't shown why the paragraphs should be in the article. And please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. enochlau (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Point---> this is where democratic rule of law turns into punitve despotisim, subverting the rulde of law and individual rights, the university being he insturment of this rule by executive action JUBALCAIN 23:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let Me give you a practical example. Suppose a federal beurcract who admits thier is no legal basis wrote to your education provider and asks the to dis-enroll Enochlau, or loose funding every year. Is this rule of law ???? JUBALCAIN 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have understood me. Let me try and summarise it succinctly:

1. 1. s 51 empowers the Federal parliament. Whatever it excludes, that only means that this is not empowered to the federal government.

1. 1. Anything in s 51 only applies to the federal government. It does not, and cannot, apply coersively to anyone or anything else, including the University. ....!

@@@ but the fed cannot try to get around this!!! in any way!!! can give itslef more power by using any other means state govt or otherwise by s96 grants for eg.JUBALCAIN 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1. 1. As I have said above, DOGS case only protects the prohibition relating to religion, nothing else.

@@@ The dogs case stand for the proposition that tied grants can't be used to get around constitional prohabitions.JUBALCAIN 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that makes sense

@@@ not it does not.

And I concur with Enochlau that you need to show some reliable sources. --Sumple (Talk) 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sumple possibly needs to examine the operation of the constituion and the implications, Enoochlau appears to accept the validity of the legal argument.JUBALCAIN 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources will be provided, thats why i have left this in the talk :: have edited in breif ans to your quetions JUBALCAIN 23:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay JUBALCAIN. Since you don't accept my proposition relating to DOGS (almost certainly) only applying to religion, I can see that you haven't read any constitutional law text books properly. I'd recommend that you start with the Constitution of Australia article, then follow up with a standard constitutional law textbook such as Blackshield and Williams (available at your nearest Co-op bookshop). --Sumple (Talk) 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not accepting the validity of this legal argument. I actually think it has no merit at all. What I want you to do now is stop soapboxing and get on with helping us determine whether these paragraphs have merit in an encyclopedia article. "Sources will be provided" -- you've said that for a long time - so please do it! Even if you have, these paragraphs add unsightly bias etc into the article. These are points I have raised above that you seem to have ignored in your bid to convince me of the validity of your legal analysis. enochlau (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I retract and rephrase, you implied "Even if your legal analysis is right,", or pehaps lead on to if then so what, whel the if then so what is as I put it::

Point---> this is where democratic rule of law turns into punitve despotisim, subverting the rulde of law and individual rights, the university being he insturment of this rule by executive action JUBALCAIN 23:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let Me give you a practical example. Suppose a federal beurcract who admits thier is no legal basis wrote to your education provider and asks the to dis-enroll Enochlau, or loose funding every year. Is this rule of law ????

It is rejected that this is soapboxing, it is a factual account of the machinary of state. What I suggest you do is engage the grey matter and objectively and dipationately examine what this means rather than resort to adgetival language.

An outcome is that it means any executive beaurcrat can threaten (directly or indorectly) any citzen while openly admitting they are not upholding any law. The univerisyt has been co-opted into this action. That is the univeristy is the chosed instument of the cutting back the rights of the individual.

Also I have done consitituional law and read extensively on the subject + have recieved quite a few legal opinons on this from praticing laywers, , who are in law firms such as such as trescox, freehills, constituional barristers etc and constituional law accedemics at UNSW. on all four HC case and DOGS case on point. The case you should be looking at to shoot this down is the subsidy of milling in tasmaina if you really want a good counter case on point about s96 and prohabitions (a constituion lawyer would know this straight away)!!![[5]]. *Even If* I was incorrect about DOGS ( which I am not but lets suppose I was for the sake of argument) the Fed still needs to find a head of power then pass law. In the dogs case at least you will agree that a law was passed that was challenged in the HCA. In this instance no law has been passesed and the fed Buearocrat cites not law and admits there is no penalty agasint the student.JUBALCAIN 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I add I am open to your rewiring of the para, and i also agree to provide eveidence.JUBALCAIN 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion page is for the discussion of the content of the encyclopedia article, and not for a discussion of constitutional law. If you do not have any more to add regarding the insertion of the paragraphs into the article, I ask that you stop posting comments on this page. However, I welcome your input into the supply of reliable sources, and the discussion of whether such paragraphs can be added to the article without causing undue bias to be inserted. enochlau (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Section header to make editing easier

This discussion may indeed be well placed in the constituional law talk, infact maybe it should be cc there, as I am asure it will attract perhaps more insightfull comment. The rational behid the discusion as I saw it was to provide a back drop as to why the university was an istrument of oppresion, and some realive backdrop is required. Once I provide the documetry evidence, then perhaps a rewirte of the paragraph in a more neutral vocie by yourself of sumple would be advantageous.JUBALCAIN 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're really pushing a minority view. Sure, published documents have been written that say that universities have been buffetted around by the strong winds of government, but you would be hard pressed to find one that agrees with "why the university was an istrument of oppresion". You really are biased against the university and intent on a show - any reasons you'd like to tell us? Such strong hyperbole does not belong in an encyclopedia article. enochlau (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok thats why we are on a talk page and I am not editng the actual page. I take the view that he University can be used as an isntrument of oppresion by Govt, and in this instance has been used and an instrument of opression. The university has been co-erced by money and other umspecified threats. The object of wiki is to present the fact dispationately, which is why I think it is good for you to re-write in a neutral way. However that I may draw aconclusion, from those facts is open to me too do, you are free to call it hyperbole if you wish...for me is a a reasonable comment on the material objective facts. What ican say (and this *is* hearsay and was conversation) but when the Dean of medicne says, "If I don't obey these people (the govt) do I go to jail or what" thats when I *think* you start worring a bit about whats going on. I *can't* prove that conversation so you can delete it freely. However I do know that the hard won gains in the lead up to the glorious revolution (1688) and up to and beyond that period including the great " bedchamber questionof 1839, abolishion of courts like the star chamber, curbing the executive to responsible goverment, tenure, and essentailly the general rule of law are canons of the australian sturcure of state, to step away from this is to return to depotisim or tyranisim or arbitairy executive action, when this is done under the mantra of a democratic system it is doubly worse. To put it more diptionatley one may say Australia purports to be an open democracy and has tenure, supremacy of parliment rule of law (etc). Evidence (xyz) may suggest abrogations or aberations from these canons exist. Or perhaps for the USYD artice more on point; Fed executive action, without law has cause students be unerolled or threatened to be unenrolled on politcal or ideolgical basis.

The point of all this is students at the univerity of sydney should be aware that the fed executive government may effectively move against individual students for expressing thier free choice, while the fed exec admits the studen has made their choice without penalty thus:: s61 gone , s51 xxxiia gone, rule of law gone, HECS gone, HEFA gone democratic process gone, but made up prior and unkown agreements and little clubs (kinda like the star chamber) called cadams okay thats where we make our decisions. Students of Usyd should be aware of these potential issues. Perhaps you can *dispationately* write of them, and at least let the potential implication be known.

here are the documenty links, that have I have been fwd'd

first page second pageJUBALCAIN 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem way too passionately involved to be able to make a rational judgement as to whether this content should be included in the article or not. I'm really sorry to put it so bluntly, but all along you've just been throwing big legal-sounding words around to put together some generalised argument about Australia's failed democracy. Your assertions have no basis in law as we have discussed above. Thank you for the links. However, they do not show notability of the event in question, or independent analysis or publications that support your contentions. What kind of a reliable source is a geocities site? What distinguishes this from any other student disenrolment? The letter shows that the student in fact withdrawn from the program him/herself. Also, as Sumple and I have stated above, just because the government threatens to, or actually does, withdraw funding from the university, the government has not in fact breached the constitution. Regardless of the legal implications, you have not satisfied Wikipedia guidelines for the notability, verifiability and neutrality of content. I once again reject any call for the paragraphs about this event to be inserted. enochlau (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am rather objective, pationate words would be much more colourfull, and i would be editing the front page rather than here in the talk. "but all along you've just been throwing big legal-sounding words around to put together some generalised argument about" I have always wondered about the varcity of making generalised criticism rather than dealing with the merit of the argument. To put i bluntly, engage your brain to attack the merits of the argument don't name call". but putting that to one side.

[1] The document says on page one the student withdrew from the medical bonded scheme (a contract not a university place to clear that up you seem to have equated this as withdrawal from the degree, no the student withdrew from a contract with the fed) which is why it goes onto say the withdrawal was without penalty, it is at that point refering to a contract! The student never withdrew fromthier HECS palce at university.

[2] You do very correctly put forward the very crux of the matter when you say

"What distinguishes this from any other student disenrolment?"

The difference is as far as I am aware, a student has never been disenroleded at an Australian University or USYD for that matter by means of a executive fed government request.

[3] I rejet that I am way to close , or passsionate or otherwise. I have presented a rational argument, with specific cases, legislation and contextulised. I note you impliedy accede to this proposition as you did not attack the merits of the arguments, in your last psot, you merely colorful language which boiled down to *I don't like it* but could not render a reason, except to attack the messengers credibility not the message

[4] On the contary you appear to be enrolled in USYD, which would, if anyone make you a person with bias opinions about the university. I on the other hand have no such issue. I do also detect some dissapointment about being out argued in law, which is hard for any budding lawyer (law student). If you doubt my legal analysis, go and take it for an opinon to your constituional law lect, I *have* before I came here. It is supportive of the argument that you are not abreast of the law on point that you did not raise [[6]] Moran, as this is a case on point. I am not sure, but I would be interested to know do they teach rule of law 1688 golrious revolution, the bedchamber question and all of that at USYD law , ???? and what rule of law means (and I accept its has multiple meanings but the adoption of Scheuerman’s conventional definition of rule of law is widely accpeted provides a usable framework for this discourse providing reference points to the material issues.Definition of Rule of Law, Rule of law requires the state action rests upon legal norms (1) general in character (2) relatively clear (3) public (4) prospective, and (5) stable. )

[5] Again you judge the form rather than the content. It is irrelevant that the documents reside on geocities of anywhere else, it is it is the content that is at issue. If you want you are always at liberty to execute and FOI, thats how it landed on my desk in the first instance.

[6] It is of highest importance to all university of syndey (and all uni studens) to know that they could be dis enrolled, on federal executive whim. Suppose Enouchlau, writes a critical article of the FED goverment, this indicates the fed govt executive is willing to threaten a funding scheme so effect di-enrollemnt. This studend has been critical of aparticular scheme operated by contract, and so withdrawn from that comtract without penalty. Of absoulte importance is the admission that the student in question withdrew from the scheme ( contract) with out penalty. Then the Fed govt executive has taken puntive actions while admitting withdrawal without penalty. (jubal cain)

I also add if I was going to be "non rational" as you suppose, I would be editing the fron page here and as you notice I have stated med fac wiki page, I would be putting stuff there, but *I* havent...because the issues need to be put in a objective factual way. (Jubalcain)

Um, I can see that User:JPD has already explained this to you on your talk page. Wikipedia requires verifiable secondary sources. It's not the place for original research. Your only source so far is an original letter from the government. All the interpretations of the letter comes from you. You really need a published secondary source to have this make it into the article --Sumple (Talk) 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(You can sign your posts by adding "~~~~" at the end of your post. --Sumple (Talk) 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• every* thing is an interpretaion you ever write. I do however see what you mean, there are things drawn out, but where do we draw the line? I propse, in this instance all that has to be said is something along the lines of

"The federal executive government asked a student not to be enrolled or face funding cuts."

This is factual, very important as it shows the direct executive trying to effect indivudial students enrollement rather than merely applying legislation to classes of students, and it is open to the reader to draw thier own conclusions, whithout he injection of any prejudice.

it is important to know that a student may have thier enrollemt effected by the whim of the fed excutive.....!!!! (jubalcain)

yeah I know the tildal tilda tilda thing but i am on a dif terminal, and can't login, but thanx for the tip anyway (jubalcain)

For you to even include that claim into the article, you'll need to find us some independent articles published by third parties. Find us some, and we can continue the dialogue. enochlau (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this case has been reported in the news media? Maybe Honi soit, that bastion of independent unbiased journalism? --Sumple (Talk) 04:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually good point Sumple may I should submit to honi soit...!!!!, Enochlau, I encourage you make to analysis of the presented facts.. motherhood staments, are underwhelming......you have the links, that exactly what the letter says...in black and white plain english....

You're asking me to interpret the primary documents. That's not what we're on about, as we have repeatedly said. We want links that verify your statements that come from independent, third party, published, reliable sources. enochlau (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No Enochlau, I am not asking you to interprit a primary document, at all, it is what the document plainly says without interpritation.
Your argument of interpritation appears to be a stock manuver to reject something *you* don't like. Tell me what document is not intepreted when you read it ? Please, again, disect the substance of the issue.

In the alternative you can constitute this as a published thrid party independant dcument, considering it eminates from the govt via foi. a reliable source about enrollment pressures effecting the university. That is what implored me to remember that it was the university we were talikn about so the primary documents are the enrollment and similar laws/bylaws of the unversity this document is a commentry/ gloss of them or thier opperation. JUBALCAIN 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

'if you let person x be enrolled the you lose funding, and by the way peron x left the contract without penalty."

its quite a straight forward proposition, and an important thing to know for any student or potential at Usyd that you enrollemnt can be so affected by whim of executive government. If you can find any statute on the federal statue book that gives any federal executive person to do this .... I would ne interested. However the author of the letter Mr Wells himself can only "ask" and cite no statute. What do you think??? is it importnat factual information that HECS or other paid up studetns can be subjected to this? an article point that gives some background of the scheme and consquences has been hosted by the yesmen at http://www.gatt.org/medicare.htm JUBALCAIN 13:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Any external links less biased, and perhaps more relevant to the discussion at hand (which I remind you is about the University of Sydney)? enochlau (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, this link it is emphisiased that entry in and participation in must be voulntary http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/BD/2000-01/01BD041.htm, the relevant part is the emphisias on being vouluntary so as to avoid the civil conscription prohabition

limit of penalty is in 19ABA HIC Cth, which only kicks in if a contract breached this demostrates the exten and operation of any penalty. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hia1973164/s19aba.html

There is also a news paper article that quotes Tony Abbot saying the scheme is voluntary no one is forced into it (trying to dredge up the link)JUBALCAIN 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is to show that this event is notable.

So far the only notability claim has come from you that "students should know this". With respect, that does not establish notability. In these cases, usually a press report is needed - if you look at University of Sydney#Recent disputes, you will see that in that case a reputable media sources and a public media release about the event are referenced.

None of your external links are about this event. Can you supply such a source?

If I claimed that it's important for students to know that napkins at the Wentworth Building are not available for students who purchase their meals from the kebab shop, do you think that establishes notability?

If you reall feel students should know this, you should get it published in a student publication to start with. If it is notable enough to be reported on, then it can be included in Wikipedia. --Sumple (Talk) 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If I aprehend you correctly (And I think I do), in your considered view, availabilty of napkins at certain kabab shops are of similar import to federal executive action with resepct to enrollment status of students. Aperceptive compartive weighting system.

[2] It is notable beyond any current student but also, to any potential student should have the opportuing to understand the tennure of thier enrolment is at the whim of the federal executive.

[3] The questions is considering the strands of government and university this issues pulld to gether, what could be more notable? a mere Cnacellor resigning be cause he has a conflict of interets? well that must have effected the studets standing at the unversity. The issue herer is you ar ewriting notable from a postion of "kings and queens" class perspective. Like history books that usally foucs what happened to this important personage or that dynsatyies intriuqes, but the Bob the commoner just get tramplled beneath the hoves of whichever army is tramelling over his humble abode. I quote Lord Denning who gives some perspective on rule of law and its importance and the rights of the commoner

'The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.' So be it – unless he has justification by law.: Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at 320"

Your mitre and underpinings of what constitutes notable apear to be (non intentinally) biased.JUBALCAIN 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, I love Lord Denning too, but it's hardly relevant. You didn't get my point. The question is not whether you or I think its notable - its whether reliable and verifiable sources think its notable.

If it's notable enough to get a book or academic paper published on it, yes!

If it's notable enough to make it into the Sydney Morning Herald, yes!

Get what I mean? --Sumple (Talk) 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning to JUBALCAIN: You really are testing our patience. As I have repeatedly stated above, all you are required to do is provide external sources that explicitly state the facts as purported in the proposed new paragraphs. I request that all further comments be to that effect - supply external sources, not a continuation of the legal merits of this student's case, or the supposed importance to current and future students. This Wikipedia talk page is not for soap boxing or for the lengthy discussion of legal arguments. Any further irrelevant comments by anyone will be deleted. enochlau (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning to Enochlau:: you are realy tesing our patience, as you refuse to treat the merits of the subject but contiunally resort to adjectival language rather than address the material issues. Eg your frequent use of the term soapbox indeed now so prevelant is this term in your dialouge are in fact soapboxing about soapboxing, rather than trying to offer reasoned an rational material. Apart from that your public acknowledgemnt of being part of the Unviersity of Sydney invalidates you on the grounds of bias from taking effective part in this conversation anyway.

It has been published in the SMH, apart from that, the Australian consitution is a much more notable document than the SMH. I also premempt any argument of interpretation. Any SMH article you may take will always be subject to interpretation, further there are 4 HCA cases on point http://www.cdu.edu.au/law/apl/caselinks/s51_21_30.htm#51(xxiii). This has to be far and away more reliable sources than the SMH!!!

Constitution [YES]

4 High Court cases [YES]

PARLIMENTRY HANSARD [YES]

SMH[YES]

Documents given [YES]

Other websites given [YES]

HAS THE POTENTIAL TO EFFECET EVERY PROSPECTIVE AND CURRENT STUDENT AT USYD [YES]

aslo include some extracts from the Fed parliment hansard on point that verify the limit and positon of the material scheme and facts and opperation LINK [7]

Extracts Mr. IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (10.59 a.m.) If the people who are considering taking these scholarships are not prepared to take the conditions, the answer is simple: don't sign them. This is not a compulsory scheme; this is a voluntary scheme.

Dr WOOLDRIDGE (Casey—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (11.56 a.m.) Should a scholar breach the contract of the Commonwealth then they will be required to repay their scholarship with interest and there will be a ban of up to 12 years on practicing in urban Australia with a Medicare provider number

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia) (12.41 p.m.) The government has a preference for doing everything in terms of the contract

Ms O'BYRNE (Bass) I must confess that the announcement of bonded scholarships by the government did come as a bit of a shock to many of us because it was one that the minister did not support when the concept formed part of ALP policy. On 10 September 1998, in a press release, the minister stated: The scholarships are probably unconstitutional due to the limitation in section 51 preventing civil conscription of doctors. I hasten to point out, though, that the ALP policy required an agreement to work for the number of years for which the scholarship was accepted, and not the defined six-year prescription that is set out in this bill. This meant that if a student accepted a scholarship for only two years of their training, they would have been required to work in rural areas for only two years. We believed this would make the scheme significantly more attractive.

Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (12.32 p.m.) As I said, this bill is really about bashing people to achieve a goal. It sets out conscription on people which might be a contractual arrangement for 17 years and then you take away the Medicare ticket so they cannot get payment. Therefore, working as a doctor would be pretty difficult because you would probably work for nothing. I do not think that is the solution. Hopefully, some of the amendments may get up in the Senate which may make this a much better bill and help us move towards a better health solution for Australia. We will have the debate in the Senate and we will work through some of the issues that the minister has not bothered doing with the health professionals of Australia, as he should have done. If he had done that, we would be much further down the track with this legislation being a solution to the problem and not, as I said, a bill to bash people about the head with and make them stay somewhere where they probably do not want to be.JUBALCAIN 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

JUBALCAIN, I think you are still missing the point about soapboxing. The sort of soapboxing that is not allowed on Wikipedia is simply writing about a subject that you think is important, without giving proper references demonstrating it's importance and ensuring a neutral point of view. Enoch's point that this is not appropriate, whether you call it soapboxing or not, is quite appropriate. The fact is that even if the issue is important to all students at Sydney Uni (and you make a reasonably convincing argument for this, if not for the views on the issue), it does not belong on Wikipedia unless it has been discussed by reputable sources. (By the way, this article is not particularly aimed at actual or potential students of the university anyway.)

As for your references, yes, the constitution and high court judgments are very good sources in themselves, but they do not in any way discuss the issue here, even if they are relevant to it. Drawing conclusions about this scheme, let alone the student's disenrolment, from these primary sources is what we call original research. Yes, the SMH article must contain some interpretation, but not our own interpretation of the primary sources. The Wikipedia policy does not rule out interpretation of the constitution, it simply says that the interpretation must come from published sources. Similarly, the copy of the letter you posted links to is a primary source of limited value in this context, even without considering the fact that it's location on a geocities cite leaves room for questions about its authenticity. You say there is a SMH article. Have you given a link or details of the article? That would count as a decent reference.

The Hansard debate is also possibly useful, but in an article about the MRBS or perhaps Medicare in general, as it gives criticism of the bill which made the scheme possible. However, it doesn't really add any information relevant to this article about the University of Sydney. When you can provide references to serious coverage of this student's disenrolment, we might have something to consider. JPD (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay point taken. It would seem that the HC cases are secondary, and so is the hansrard. The main inclusion from the hansard is thate shows the scheme is to be vouluntary. The SMH articales I am dredgeing up have the minister of health emphisising that the decision to the scheme has to be voluntary. The document provided, is avialable by foi to anyone.

With repsect to the HCA and HC cases, these are not my interpretation but available in consitunal law books , indeed also in the parl paper link (did you see that). The parl paper raises most of the material issues and would seem to adress many of your issues.

I do *struggle* a bit to see smh as a reputable source, I remember when it reviewwed xmen 1 movie, and the reviewer thought the guy at the begining was wolverine (it was actually magneto). Perhaps it is better as an indicator of notiriety. Then agaisn so is inclusion in the constituion!!!This sort of thing does present rather onimous portent for students at Sydney University, and perhaps other australian universities JUBALCAIN 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If the interpretations you are giving are from law books and parliamentary papers, then these books and papers should be given as the references, not links to the judgments themselves. The judgments are primary sources in the sense that they require a certain amount of interpretation. The parliamentary paper is a good source to raise doubts about the consitutionality of the MRBS (it says the question is unresolved), but any link made between that and the incident at USyd is purely your interpretation. That really is the key point here - talking about legal issues and quoting the consitution is not helpful because it does not establish the notability of the event that you wish to include in the article. Since the disenrolment is an event, it is not included in the constitution. To find information about events, we look to news reports or workds dealing with history. As you say, a news report in something such as the SMH would establish the notability of the event, showing that it is a significant controversy. Notability is established by the fact that reputable sources have thought it important enough to publish something, not that you or I think it is important, however important it actually is. The SMH may not be 100% reliable, but it is a reasonable news source (reviews are a slightly different matter, but the same general principles apply), and the key point is that (for better or worse), Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not "truth". JPD (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Section header to make editing easier (2)

Yes I think that is a good sumation of the sitatation. I think the issue here as you may well apreciate the mechanism of implementing the scheme is complex. Eg the parl paper doesnt touch on students being dis-enrolled from their degree if they leave the fed scheme. This simply was never broached, by the parliment the parl paper. Such action was never anticipated. I think you may agree that such an issue is important, yet it is not published in the SMH. Perhaps the way to braoch the subject then is to state the parl paper (hansard, ect) that is there has been no public forum / publication that has stated that students would be dis-enrolled as a result of not participating in the scheme. This coupled with the document provided from Mr. wells to the Dean provides the inforamtion. I suppose it iis up to you to be convinced of that documents authneticity, or if you wish foi it. But even then, it may not reach your satisfaction of notiriaty. I shall consider a proposalJUBALCAIN 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember that the event you are trying to include is about the expulsion of the student, not the operation or legality of the scheme: that belongs in an article about the scheme, not here.

The expulsion of the student is not mentioned in the parliamentary papers or hansard or cases to which you have referred. --Sumple (Talk) 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it was not mentioned is perhaps the point! If it was in law or in the parl paper, then there would be no issue at all, to the fact it was not canvassed as a possibility but done in reality makes it more remarkable noteable. On a different note in some way rely on a newspaper article or other main media seems to be a poor barometer of importance. Such stance seems to accord importance in rather skewed manner. The level of such reliability and importance of tighly class held media such as smh is in some way very suspect as it is conceivably merely and arm of paid for self interets. What is factual however and does concern the universities opperaton is that the fed executive has singled out a particular student on ideological basis for disenrolment or at least attempting to prejudice their enrollment. The fact that this forms part of the public record both federally and in the state of NSW (asertained by FOI)would seem to put on at least the same footing as an article in the smh. That sydeny uni may be so influenced, is notable. So to that part of the issue, it would seem to merit some mention. The issue has been done, it exists as fact, let the public put on thee facts whatever implications they wish. Interpertaion should be left to the public. By analogy I heard of law student who had to right an essay on some war between Russia and Napoleon, the student wrote from the perspective of Boris the farmer, who mererly saw different troops cross his farm lands, and how he suffered equally. The point being he did not write from the point of view of the rulers and political halls of power. In some ways the miter of the SMH plays to this tune, only if it is published here or there can it be notable. Perhaps as an example, suppose I was around when Jesus Christ was around and I was writing wiki article on this guy. Well he wasn't really a majour guy in his early times, just some deranged messiah wantabee from some backwater town. Now if I did a wiki article on him, you probally would have rejected it becuase it wasn't in Romes equivalent of the SMH. But as to the eventually notability of the person would not those early wiki entries be eminently useful and valuable. We have here the seeds of executive government holding sway against the free choices of individuals (students) in a University context, (an ostensible place of learning), this is where the seeds of change and importance germinate from. This is a marker of change. I put it to you that no student in any university in Australia or perhaps ever in the history of universities world wide has been so threatened (ultimately with criminal charges by the teaching hospital they were at). It may not seem like a big deal but sit back consider the potential implication,

It would seem to be the sort of thing students and potential students would want to know about thier enrollment, a remarkable fact, or should at least be aware of such factual realities, *Much* more improtnat to *Boris* the student than the fact Some Chacellor was sitting on some tobbaco board, I gently suggest the perpective and criteria you have adopted or has been foisted upon you is a neo - bourgeois wich may not be inhererntly wrong, but does introduce a subtle but powerful and palable bias JUBALCAIN 04:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"On a different note in some way rely on a newspaper article or other main media seems to be a poor barometer of importance." - look I'm sorry, but it is just Wikipedia policy that this incident must be reported for you to include it in the article. Arguing that it is important for students to know, based on peripheral issues, does not suffice. enochlau (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey thats ok. We can collecitvely cast our minds back to some rather unsavoury incedents in history where that one was pulled out, look I'm sorry, but it is just xyz's policy. It strikes me as rational beings we "adopt" policy, just folloiwng orders, [8]Nuremberg Defense, but it does not rule us. In the first instance why does that polciy so bind (you), what hold does this (policy) meme have in you grey matter? Secondly isn't it an interpretation of said policy (meme). Is that not the point of having reason, we dont just follow policy, we can use our reason and rational? A more reasoned argument leaves the proclomation of 'I'm sorry, but it is just xxxx's policy as a way of saying I'm right your wrong? Kinda time for a policy change eh. Or are we back to the ten comandements from on hight, thou shalt not....xyz in this space. IT would seem the main issue is the notiriaty one. So I say policy is merely someones artfiical rules, as is the interpriation of it. It does not render a reason?

JUBALCAIN 07:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We have policies to work with that have been worked out by consensus since Wikipedia started, and they give us some framework by which most Wikipedians agree is a good way for us to write an encyclopedia. Three experienced editors have expressed the opinion that this is Wikipedia policy and that by the application of the policy about what content should go in the encyclopedia, we have attempted to convince you that it is not a good idea to include it. Of course, rules are only there to help us; they are not the ends in themselves. That is why there is the rule about ignoring all rules, but in this case, there is no real convincing argument that the rule should be broken. This is especially so for such a fundamental tenet as verifiability. If you disagree with the policy, then you are welcome to express your thoughts about it, but this talk page is the wrong forum for that purpose. enochlau (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your concers are firstly notiriaty, then to a lesser extent verfiability seems the secondary issue (alibeit one that you raised). As before History shows us that consenus has lead to rather spectacluar faliures, but rational discourse has not, pythagorues sum of the square hold true today as it did when he suggested it. I suppose I am in a postion akin to a round eather, against the flat earthers. I could sit down and demostrated valid proofs, and produce a host of evidence of celestial motion that is apperenet to anone with eyes, but I am told that is theory and an elucidation. I suggest that there is a line in the sand here, thatis being garded with a fundamentalist/zealous fevour, somewhat exemplified by the use and identifacion of the qualitied of a sects or cult, consider the use of "Wikipedians" , three "editors". It is suggested that such terminology are the halmarks of fundamentalist ideology, and proselyting, the issue being such systems historically have lead to rather non objective judgement of issues. There is no saftey in numbers or consensus, only the cold hard light of rigourous rational discource. JUBALCAIN 11:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever has gone before in this discussion, verifiability is a more fundamental aspect of Wikipedia policy than notability, which is not even official policy. The most relevant thing here is the nature of "verifiability". As the Bainer says below, this is not the place for new ideas that you have "verified", it is the place for information that has already been published elsewhere. Noone has said that it has to be published by the SMH, just that it must have been published somewhere. If you could give articles from other news sources, it would be ok - probably even a mention in Honi Soit would be useful. Academic journals are even better sources, but are unlikely to be helpful for this particular incident. Rational discourse is good, but a Wikipedia article is not the place for rational argument, it is the place for reporting on the rational discourse that has gone on elsewhere. The reason for this may not be clear, but it is quite simple. If this were the place for supposed rational discourse, we would spend half our time arguing with cranks who claim to have squared the circle or something like that. Instead, we leave it to them to get their work published first. This stance also stops people who may have valid ideas/things to report, but the argument is that if it were really valid/important, they would be able to get it published elsewhere first. Then, when that happens, we look at how/whether the information fits in to an encyclopdia article. Wikipedia cannot be used as a tool to gain publicity for something. It's as simple as that. JPD (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

I've been asked to provide another view on this matter as a person not from the University, who is otherwise uninvolved with the issue at hand. There is alot of discussion here, but from taking a look at the material which is the subject of discussion, and browsing through the discussion, I can see that there seem to be two main problems here:

1. Currently, no independent sources have been found to support the statements made, namely that the government has made threats to the university, and so forth, and as such the material in question is not verifiable.
2. That even if sources could be found for the material, it would be more logical to discuss it in an article specifically about the bonding scheme, or about the government's role in administration of the health system more generally, than it is to discuss it only in an article about the University.

It seems that the issue of the University acting at the direction of the executive and not of the legislature hasn't actually been added into the article yet, but if it were, that would create another problem. JUBALCAIN's arguments about section 51(xxiiiA) are certainly interesting, and novel (I myself had not considered the application to students before, only to already practicing doctors or dentists), but that would be precisely the problem; Wikipedia does not accept original research, and unless the arguments about civil conscription had been published in some other source, they could not possibly go in the article.

The bottom line is that until there are some independent sources to directly verify the material, it really cannot be added to this or any other article.

The reference to old scientific debates is apt. If Copernicus were alive today, trying to convince the geocentrics that the Earth revolves around the sun by editing Wikipedia, he would not be able to do so. But anyone who thinks he should be able to is misunderstanding the nature of Wikipedia; it purposely aims to be a neutral, unoriginal tertiary source which relies only on material already published elsewhere. Wikipedia is simply not the place for novel or unpublished material, nor does it want to be. --bainer (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)-b

while being independance of argument to date is good, it is undermined by the strong identification as a wikipedian, which intoduces a type of bias, because of the meme/ethos adopted. Putting that to one side, the crux issue, "It seems that the issue of the University acting at the direction of the executive and not of the legislature hasn't actually been added into the article yet", No the article has been left alone, if you mean the front page article.

This is not "origonal reasearch", given that all the infomation and actual scheme is in the public domain. The copy of the letter has been provided, and it has been written fron a public fed executive, which as a matter of published record would be arguably more offical than Honi, (all respect to that pubilcation). This is verifiable, if you doubt you can verify it independantly. The manner of implementation of the Exec Govt's is piviotaly through the university in this case, and so sqaurely falls in the USYD Article, of course it also belongs elsewhere. But as the USYD has aquiecesed then they are tared by the same brush.
The claim wikipedia is neutral is somewhere between misleading to incorrect. Wikipedia is adopting a policy of going presenting a "recieved" view of articels occuring in a particular domain. Wiki is not neutral but systematical choses what should be included, by selecting what published means and does not mean. The dangers here are that you are reporting a point of view that has some parallels a heavily slanted neo-bourgeoisie and "time limited" view of things. That is the editors/ect of all the magazines/newspapers/journals ect, not only lack the time to include or examine material articels, but are hardly a representative class. It would seem the meme you have adopted is not neutral but potentinally, myopic as well as stulified. The strenght of wiki is that it can codify some much more of what has come to pass. The issue here is that an old view of what should be in an encycopeida, has been missapplied to a new paradigm / medium. The origonal paper encylopedia chose these limits of publication in part becuasse of the limits or workers they could employ. Wiki on the web suffers from no such issue (or a least to a much lessor extent). We can do better than than now in the brave new web, let the encycolpedia be truly encyclopedic.JUBALCAIN 21:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[on a different note, bainer the language of the xxiiia prohabition "any form" is the widest langage know to legal drafstmanship, so it probally does get you there for studetns who are given the choice "be part of this scheme or you can't complete your degree" as this would practically prevent delivery of medical serivces, and is a formJUBALCAIN 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)]

Lodge

Just addressing the fact there was no reference to Lodge University of Sydney, which is a well known Freemasons lodge that meets at 279 Castlereagh Street which I believe is the law campus? I threw up a stub, if other editors who know more of the specifics could expand on the location, history, et cetera, it'll be greatly appreciated.

I positioned it under the student organisation, activities, yadda section originally under sport, but then put it before sport not out of bias but because it's alphabetically first, and the subject category heading starts with 'student organisations', followed by 'activities, sports, yadda'. Thus, I felt that it didn't look right being the first thing listed in the header yet last in the content.

I will give the secretary of the lodge a ring over the coming days and get some more history to fill in if we have no volunteers here who can do so. <3 Jachin 13:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So tell me, why is this organisation notable, and why does it deserve to be mentioned in Wikipedia? So far, it is generally accepted that no student societies/clubs/organisations are notable enough to be mentioned except for the umbrella organisations such as the Union. Do you have references? Also, the law school is at the corner of King, Elizabeth and Phillip Streets, so it can't be that. enochlau (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sports clubs

In the Sport section, it looks like a lot of sports clubs are trying to insert a little plug for themselves there - there are a lot of them, and it's already grown quite a bit, and it's unsustainable if more gets added. I suggest we delete any references to specific sports clubs (unless they're particularly noteworthy in the history of Sydney Uni) and make general references to the types of sports and activities available. Comments? enochlau (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think clubs competing in first grade competitions in major sports deserve specific mention, but apart from that specific clubs shouldn't be mentioned. JPD (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Faculties

Can we add links to each faculty's website and add a page on wikipedia for each department within the university. I would like to create a wikipedia page for Sydney's Faculty of Dentistry similar to how Harvard has done theirs.

-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_School_of_Dental_Medicine

Would this be possible?

Thanks Jwri7474 23:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you'll need to find enough information to write about each faculty and have everything referenced. Also remember that the faculties at the university are currently under a state of flux (mergers in the works?) so I'm not sure if it's a good idea at the moment to write separate articles about them currently... but go ahead if you want. enochlau (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Student representatives/Union/Sports Union

I think it is more orgranised and logical to have subheadings for student representatives, student union, and Sydney Uni sports Union under the heading of "Student organisations, clubs and activities". I have taken the liberty of modifying the page. I have also created the page for Sydney University Sport (SUS), and will start to move information currently on the page to the SUS page and expand the SUS page. Hopefully this will resolve the questions of which clubs should be on the page and which clubs should not (in fact I think all clubs deserve a place in the history and in Wikipedia, if storage allows). --Wpliao 16:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of intro spent on rankings, law school(?)

The introduction puts far too much emphasis on rankings and, like most other universities, uses peacock terms. Overall, the introduction needs to be shortened.

Consider rewrite of introduction:

The University of Sydney, established in Sydney in 1850, is the oldest university in Australia. It is a member of Australia's "Group of Eight" Australian universities that are highly ranked in terms of their research performance; it is one of the country's largest and most prestigious educational institutions. In 2005, the University of Sydney had 45,966 students and 2,300 (full-time equivalent) academic staff making it the second largest in Australia.[3] The University of Sydney continues to rise in global rankings, confirming its place within the top 40 universities in the world. The UK’s Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings published in October 2006 ranked the University fifth best in the world for the arts and humanities, nineteenth for the social sciences and twentieth for biomedicine. [4] [5] The University as a whole was ranked 35th in the world in that same publication's league table, ranking third among Australian universities.[6] In the Newsweek global 100 for 2006, the University of Sydney (together with the Australian National University) was one of two Australian universities placed in the top 50 in the world [7].

The University of Sydney, established in Sydney in 1850, is the oldest university in Australia. It is a member of Australia's "Group of Eight" Australian universities that are highly ranked in terms of their research performance. In 2005, the University of Sydney had 45,966 students and 2,300 (full-time equivalent) academic staff making it the second largest in Australia.[3] The University of Sydney has been ranked amongst the top 40 universities in the world by various sources. The UK’s Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings published in October 2006 ranked the University fifth best in the world for the arts and humanities, nineteenth for the social sciences and twentieth for biomedicine. [4] [5] The University as a whole was ranked 35th in the world in that same publication's league table, ranking third among Australian universities.[6] In the Newsweek global 100 for 2006, the University of Sydney (together with the Australian National University) was one of two Australian universities placed in the top 50 in the world [7].

This removes peacock terms, and also removes superfluous information about Law School in introduction. I'm not sure why Law School information is in introduction, it does not belong there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakashi10 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC).

Sandstone universities

There should be a reference to the universities membership of the Sandstone universities.Sandstoner 07:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

World Universities Debating Ranking

It would be really nice if active Wikipedians working in this article put this template at a suitable place, preferably in the article related to student activities or debating activities.

Niaz bd 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this template. There isn't an article which really covers specifically the debating activities, so this article is probably as good a home as any. enochlau (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouraging reply. I have a plan to organize debating related articles with proper citations and references. I have already started working on them and this article is one of my such initiatives. Niaz bd 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance?

Do Australians wishing to apply or attend Uni have to complete an exam or test in high school and have substantial grades from post-high school years to be accepted, or is just if you've completed year 12? The section doesn't make it quite clear. Please advise.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angel2001 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

See Universities Admission Index and Higher School Certificate for the general case. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Latin name

Admin Enoch. Your recent edit summary is quite ironic. Arbitrarily and repeatedly removing valid and accurate information on nothing more than the basis that you don't think it belongs there, then protecting the page when several unconnected editors restore it is anything but mature. If anything, perhaps you should grow up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.61.177 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Accurate? Give me a reference for it. enochlau (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It may not be appropriate, and it would definitely need a reference, but it isn't too hard to check that it is accurate with some OR. Go to Fisher and find a book that's been in the library long enough. There are stamps in some books using that latin name for the university. JPD (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I somehow think that isn't sufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia, unfortunately. enochlau (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I pointed out that it would be original research. This isn't jsut a case of silly vandalism, though. JPD (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how citing the authority of the university's own library in asserting its own name (and prior use thereof) counts as academic "research", original or otherwise. It's not an endeavour to determine an as yet undiscovered principle, merely the verification of an institution's name. The very nature of academic Latin makes use of the internet for verification (or lack thereof) unreliable, and so turning to real world sources such as this is not merely advisable but inevitable. If in your opinion this authority is "insufficient" for the purposes of wikipedia (we're swimming in obscure and nebulous requirements tonight) then I doubt anything will be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.87.145 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Rubbish. The internet is irrelevant. Real world sources are always appropriate - but they need to be real reliable sources saying that the Latin name is so and so, not merely someone's personal observation that the name appears on old library stamps. Once a source is provided, there is then the question of whether a name that is no longer used is relevant to the article. JPD (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think that if it was once used, but it is no longer actively used, it is misleading to place it in the infobox because infoboxes are for summarising the current state of the subject matter. It may, however, be appropriate to place it in the text of the article, if we can find a reference as JPD mentioned. enochlau (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair points. I put forward for consideration, however, that if the stamps are in books which are still in active circulation (ie available for use and loan in the fish rather than just locked up in archive) then they are still objectively "in use" as an identifying mark of the university. This could also be important in identifying historic documents, particularly formal and/or international correspondence (typically conducted in French and Latin) wherein the identifying of a person frequently entailed stating his credentials and qualifying institutions. 202.67.87.145 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Latin Name of the university (Universitas Sidneiensis) is quite clearly, prominently, and continuously attested by the exhibition on level 2 of the Fisher Library (USyd's primary library) on the foundation of the University and the grant of its Arms. In this exhibition are presented for popular examination the original Royal Bull clearly stating the name and arms of the university in Latin, several seals of the university (in Latin) at various stages of development, and significant pieces historical of Australian academic, literary and popular history bearing the Latin name of the University. It may be argued that verifying this information requires original research (though I have photographs of some pieces on display should they be necessary) that is beside the point of proving the validity and centrality of the Latin name to Sydney University's formative history. Such basic information is far from irrelevant to anyone with more than a passing interest in the development of the university, thus any suggestion that the name be deliberately excluded is simply preposterous. 211.27.40.229 14:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rather than even pretending to be impartial Enochlau has simply reverted any changes to the entry of the university's Latin name without any attempt to even address the comments made above. Despite repeated public and private requests he has refused to give a clear indication of acceptably "verifiable" evidence of the existence of a Latin name. Thus I include a photograph of an original Testamur ("diploma" for you Americans) issued by the university, presented on display in the Fisher Library (Rare Book library display alcove, level 2) taken two weeks ago. The first four words "Nos Senatus Universitatis Sidneiensis" mean "this senate of the University of Sydney". click for image —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.95.158 (talk) 13:50:44, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Erm, that isn't evidence that the university has a Latin name. The entire document is written in Latin, so of course, the name is rendered in Latin. If I produced a document in Chinese with the university's name in it (written in Chinese), does that instantly mean that the university has a name in Chinese that should be mentioned? No. My point is that the university has a name in every single language that can express the concepts "University", "of" and "Sydney", but there is no evidence that the university has ever considered itself to have had such a name. enochlau (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are very gravely mistaken. This is a testamur, arguably the most important document a University can possibly issue. It is a declaration of conferral upon an individual of attainment of a degree qualification. The fact that this document is issued in Latin (and is presented by the university herself as typical of all testamurs from the seminal period of the institution) indicate the centrality of the Latin name. This is not just a bit of paper that some hackneyed website administrator has scribbled in a hurry, it is an exceedingly important document issued by the institution herself (and later, produced as a model of all such documents). Please stop trying to misrepresent the issue and just leave the name up already, you are looking more and more fickle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.95.158 (talk) 14:39:23, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The argument here seems to be whether the University has ever recognised the Latin name, or whether it is merely a translation. Has anyone contacted someone at the University who might actually know? Kewpid 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That image it of an original issue Testamur, therefore it's a moot point (since by definition the original issue of any document is not a translation but definitive). However, I can see that this is not made clear in the image itself. The testamur is still on display in Fisher library, I suppose to prove that it is an original issue I (or someone else) could provide a photograph of the rest of the document, showing the university's watermark seal. In any case, that goes beyond establishing the verity of the name itself and into the territory of hoops to jump through. I am deeply concerned that Enochlau has not shown good faith at any point in this discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.95.158 (talk) 15:08:25, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinction between not assuming good faith, and showing how someone else is wrong. enochlau (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that this was the name used by the university in documents in Latin. The question is whether the fact that the university once issued documents in Latin using that name means the Latin name is relevant for this article. Now we realise that that fact that all the evidence given so far is original research is actually to some extent relevant, since if the Latin name is at all important, it should be easy enough to find a third party source describing it. JPD (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't seem to be able to find any such third party sources. enochlau (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We therefore have no reason to include a Latin name in the infobox. JPD (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Te United Kingdom identified itself via a Latin name back when it used to issue documents in Latin. Do we put the Latin name right at the top of the page in Wikipedia? No. End of story. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Then explain the prominent latin name on the pages of the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. "End of story" indeed. 203.134.78.238 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The University of Oxford used latin for all offical documents including degree certificates right up to well after I graduated in the early 1960s. Knowledge of latin was a rerequisite for entry. Cambridge was the same. Sydney is not the same. --Bduke 23:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And when did Sydney stop? You say that "Sydney is not the same" but do not back up the implied claim that Sydney has not used her Latin name for much longer with any facts. It has already been conclusively proven by the University's own authority that this is an extant, official name for the institution. The onus therefore now shifts to those who wish to prove it should not be included to show cause as to why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.25.101 (talk) 12:12, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I really do not want to buy into the main argument. Oxford used latin on its degree certificates for hundreds of years. If Sydney used latin in the same way for even a few decades there should be plenty of references. Nobody seems to have found a source that makes the Latin name notable and that others do not think is OR. --Bduke 10:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that whatever has "been conclusively proven" (I didn't see anything about it be an extant official name, anyway), has been proven by original research, and definitely doesn't prove that the name is of sufficient relevance. Please address the issue, rather than resorting to invalid arguments by example and claims about the onus shifting. Is there any third-party evidence regarding the Latin name? JPD (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying that taking a picture of something to verify a simple fact is OR is stretching the rule too far. We have many articles that mention plaques at buildings and monuments and what the plaques say, sometimes with pictures. In those cases the plaque can be regarded as a primary source, and despite popular belief, primary sources are not forbidden on Wikipedia, especially to verify simple facts. They are only disallowed for creating an original synthesis or novel interpretation. The same situation applies to library seals and degree certificates. The question remains about whether the university still uses its Latin name for anything nowadays (I have no idea), but absent solid proof that it changed or disavowed its Latin name at some point, we should assume that it is still valid. The Latin name is a piece of valid, verifiable, and even potentially useful information and I see no reason to exclude it from the article. --Itub 09:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely a primary source. Any interpretation of a primary source requires a secondary source. The most that we can verify with the primary source (and by the way, taking the photograph is irrelevant - it is enough that the testamur exists and is accessible in Fisher library, and if it weren't, the photo would need to be published in a reliable source), is that testamurs at a certain time were issued in Latin and used that name for the University. The notion that it is "still valid", whatever that might mean, is some sort of interpretation, partly about fact and partly about editorial matters. I'm not sure anyone is arguing for complete exclusion of the verifiable facts from the article, simply saying that it is not important enough to be presented simply as "the Latin name" in the infobox. Secondary sources concerning the name may not be entirely necessary, but they would help establish both verifiability and notability. JPD (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not every single fact in an article needs to be "notable" as in WP:N, which is a guideline meant for articles. Therefore no secondary sources are necessary at all. For an analogy consider the infoboxes used for chemical compounds, which have fields for the molecular weigh, melting point, etc. If any reliable source says that the melting point of compound X is 54 degrees, that's it, it's a fact and we put it in, unless the fact is disputed (for instance, because contradictory values were found in other sources). No need to find secondary sources discussing how notable it is that compound X has a melting point of 54 degrees. BTW, I agree that the photograph is not indispensable, but it is certainly helpful for readers who can't go to the library in person. ;-) --Itub 11:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not every fact needs to be notable, but we shouldn't give undue weight to anything. The decision of what to put in an infobox is an editorial decision, but it should be informed by sources. Things like melting points of compounds are widely accepted as key facts concerning the compound which can be presented well in an infobox. The Latin name of a university is not. Even the fact that someone has decided it is appropriate to include it (as the first information you read in an infobox!) for some universities in another country does not automatically mean the same decision should be made here. We definitely don't need a secondary source discussing its notability, but secondary sources mentioning it (such as the secondary sources telling us the melting points) or even using would be one way to demonstrate its significance, and their absence is also telling. JPD (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that. If the consensus is that this piece of information is not relevant for the infobox it can certainly be excluded as an editorial decision. (I'm of the opinion that it doesn't hurt and it doesn't have undue weight--at least on my monitor, it has a tiny font!) What I could not accept were the claims that the Latin name is original research or inaccurate just because it comes from a primary source. --Itub 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, let's find consensus. So far we've only had shouting back and forth with reverts left, right and centre (especially by one particularly unscrupulous admin). Time for a vote? 58.178.24.185 02:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added this to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. I think it has earned its place there. --Bduke 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:-/ enochlau (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this meant to mean?

I suppose the person who wrote the following sentence must be doing a law degree. I certainly hope they are not an English student!

"Centred on the Oxbridge-inspired grounds of the University's Main Campus on the south-western outskirts of Sydney's CBD, the University has a number of campuses as a result of mergers over the past 20 years." Amandajm (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Oxbridge-inspired Main Campus is situated on the south-western outskirts of Sydney's CBD. The University has also acquired a number of other campuses as a result of mergers."? JPD (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rankings discussion

I'm not sure about whether this article needs a massive section on rankings at all, given that every ranking system, without exception, is close to worthless for comparison of universities, but if it must have one it should be in its own section in the body of the article. Currently it's bogging down the intro in an impenetrable discussion that no one will read. Nasica (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess

Isn't there any student at Sydney University who can grasp the niceties of Wiki formatting well enough to tidy it up? Amandajm (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

A user has introduced the new University logo to the wiki page but is asserting that the coat of arms has been abolished or made obsolete. This is grossly innaccurate. Not only does the grant of arms, which incidentally was issued in 1857, remains valid but it is stated implicitly by the Vice-Chancellor that the coat of arms is retained while the logo is used for marketing, publications and website purposes: "You will notice changes to the University of Sydney website as well as to our print and digital publications. Importantly while retaining the coat of arms our University logo has been refreshed, making it more modern while retaining our heritage." - Media release

On another point I don't think I've seen any usage of this 'crest' logo with the "The University of Sydney" text removed. Is this just your invention?

Media release: [9]

Grant of arms: [10]

actual Arms grant here: [11]

Since the coat of arms is retained it belongs in the infobox as the ultimate and formal representation of the University. That being said the logo also represents Sydney Uni and also belongs in the infobox but I must stress that the coat of arms is not obsolete, that would be an insult to the great history and traditions of sydney uni. I do believe that as testamurs are the most formal statement from the university that you can get then the 1857 arms will be used. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that you have confused this new logo with the actual coat of arms which is actually granted by the Royal College of Arms (and did so in 1857), and the logo which incorporates elements of the coat of arms and replaces many functions, however regrettable, in which the Arms originally appeared. So it still exists but to a lesser extent and is still the most formal representation of the University. I think if they used the new logo on everything including testamurs, there would be a big backlash. Sydney Uni prides itself on its history, being Australia's oldest, and having a motto which roughly translates as the "stars have changed but we remain the same". Saying that while they are an australian Uni, they still use the traditions of the classical universities such as Cambridge or Oxford. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: this specifically, although I do not really know, I do not think it has real relevance now because the system of government and administration of universities is done differently than it was in the 1850s prior to Australia becoming a federation. DeskTitleBeingTaste (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think there should be a new section on the page about the Coat of arms and logo, describing the coat of arms history and the logo introduction to clear up some of the assumptions and unclear nature of the university symbols. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather odd that you have read that press release and come up with the interpretation that you have.

"You will notice changes to the University of Sydney website as well as to our print and digital publications. Importantly while retaining the coat of arms our University logo has been refreshed, making it more modern while retaining our heritage."

to me means that the coat of arms, which I thought was specifically the lion and the open book effigy etc that they were specifically mentioning here (which is admittedly a somewhat narrow interpretation of "coat of arms", as you'd think it's the whole thing, but to me this seems to be clearly what they're saying), was retained within the new design. I find your interpretation unmotivated.

Yes, I created the image with the coat of arms separated from the text "The University of Sydney". The fact that you cannot readily find such an image on the website yourself means nothing. If you check the Internet Archive and look at the University's front page with the old design ( http://web.archive.org/web/20080730013010/http://www.usyd.edu.au/ ) you will find that an image with the crest separated was also not readily available back then. So what? The crest is still the crest.

Also, going from a simple common-sense approach as opposed to referencing sources (even though I think the press release is already quite clear), you could think like this: why on earth would the University use a crest design on their testamurs (or anything else for that matter) different from that which they use on all their official digital and print publications. It simply doesn't make sense. This is their identifying mark. Think some decades down the track, when people have forgotten the old design, wouldn't it cause confusion?

DeskTitleBeingTaste (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear in what I was saying. There is a clear and important difference between a crest and a coat of arms. The crest, or the shield in this case has been transposed to this new logo and redesigned but the "Coat of arms is retained" i.e. the crest, the motto, and the original design as it was first used way back in 1857. It just happens that the coat of arms was used as the 'logo' for all marketing purposes as well as all formals uses. Now its uses have been reduced and that role is now shared by a logo that incorporates elements of the the original arms while also being modern in design. This state of affairs occurs quite a lot, local councils and some universities use a logo for most uses but also use a coat of arms for formal purposes. Just because some roles of the arms are not carried out does not mean that they are redundant.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, having read up a little on coats of arms it seems that this is the case: the whole thing is often erroneously in English called the crest, however this originally only referred to a protrusion from the top of the shield. The Arms is specifically the central bit and is also called simply the shield. The surrounding part is the mantling - this is what the USyd heraldry has removed now. See: http://www.usyd.edu.au/heraldry/what_is_heraldry/elements_of_a_coat_of_arms.shtml. Also see: coat of arms.

In light of this I am reverting back the article, and adding rewording the coat of arms explanation to specifically refer to the change in mantling and that the coat of arms have been retained. DeskTitleBeingTaste (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Latin motto

Sorry to have to write the obvious, but the Latin eadem means "same"--absolutely nothing else. Thus User:Tone.itdown1901 was simply incorrect to revert my literal translation of Sidere mens eadem mutato. The university certainly carries a freer variant translation on its website, but refrains from describing this as a literal translation. To satisfy both viewpoints, I have now fully spelt out the difference. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The University-adopted translation is official. It is quoted in Faculty/School Handbooks and the University Calendar (one of the highest University documents publicly available) <http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/7118/3/calendar_2010_2011.pdf>. The University has not 'refrained' from using the word 'literally': http://sydney.edu.au/news/science/397.html?newsstoryid=5911. Please refer to external sources before contributing to this article. Tone.itdown1901 (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks at least for eliminating the gross 'literal' error. Nonetheless, your view tends to confirm that the motto is actually a misepresentation, i.e., that there may be a quite different mentality beneath the Southern Cross, one in which expediency edges out plain speaking. So, to appropriately cement that difference, let's have it your way, and to hell with what the Latin means. Incidentally, my cited [official SU source] pronounces If a literal translation is required, then The constellation is changed, the disposition is the same is perhaps appropriate. Please consult provided external sources in future before arrogantly presuming to tutor a more experienced fellow WP editor. And, if you have no Latin, please accept that the internal WP source for eadem fully accords with elementary vocabulary taught to junior school pupils, and cannot be faulted in any way. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Though Bjenks has proved his point beyond dispute, I second what he is saying as a latin scholar myself. It is saddening when the bureaucracy of an organisation like Wikipedia gets in the way of fixing obvious mistakes. Tjpob (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Weird image

Can that bulbous, fishbowl image of the main quadrangle be replaced by something less garish? Tony (talk)

Sorry you don't like it. That's a pretty standard projection for showing the inside of something that surrounds you. 99of9 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there an undistorted image available? You could walk out and take one (parorama shot). Stitch together, upload to commons, and it can be presented as a horizontal scroll as the fishbowl thing is now. I have to wear shades to view that bulbous Luna Park wobbly-mirror one. Tony (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511191247/http://www.planning.usyd.edu.au/statistics/pubs/Statistics2008.pdf to http://www.planning.usyd.edu.au/statistics/pubs/Statistics2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See also links

Some links are just too obscure to list. Wikipedia suggests:

"When deciding what articles and lists of articles to append to any given entry, it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article."

The suggested addition of a link to the article S* seems too obscure to me. I don't think a link to that is at all a link to which a reader would likely wish to go after reading the article. For that reason I have removed it. I suggest that, if it is to be added at all, a link be added to the Faculty of Science or Engineering and Information Technologies pages.Veritasdetect (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I have now put it on University of Sydney School of Molecular Bioscience, which is where one of the stakeholders and paper authors works. Eno Lirpa (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Full name of institution

Doesn't the name of the institution include the article "The"? This is the case if you look at the school's official logo. Isn't the name of the university "The University of Sydney" rather than just "University of Sydney"? --Han (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably best to look at WP:THE. A similar discussion was had recently (and multiple times) at Talk:Ohio State University Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

USyd does refer to itself as "The University of Sydney" and in theses, papers etc., you're told to include "The". Pkin8541 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)